Just thinking out loud here. If 90% of the studies were on high-dose vitamin C to see if it could enable you to fly like superman, then I would expect at least 90% failure. What if a lot of the negative studies were looking in the wrong places due to the big 'antioxidant' craze phase in research. Another scenario could be that high dose vitamin C requires other vitamins and/or other synergistic substances to see the effect. This could be the case, since there is a lot of interaction with Vit C and other substances. Something else that could confound the research is the amount that can be absorbed at any one time or the glucose effect that Duke mentions.over the years, 90+% of studies on high-dose C i've seen have shown it to have no effect on outcomes, while the remaining are divided, although the positive outcomes always get a lot of press
Also, I would expect a smaller food-like dosage would show a much larger evidence for use since benefits can come from correcting deficiency.
In conclusion, I have yet to see reason to give big claims to higher than food amounts vitamin C, even though there appears to be at least some benefit. I also see potential for this higher amount to be needed for optimal results and possible big benefits in a well thought out regimen. I think it too soon to declare that low dose is the way to go in any sort of conclusive way.
Disclaimer: I have not dug into the Vit C debate too much since the amount of time to sort and make sense of all the studies is too much given the likelihood that the 2500mg/day I take is meaningfully harmful.
Edited by cnorwood, 15 March 2010 - 06:35 PM.